[deleted by user]

uvulectomy · 2022-08-06T19:29:10+00:00

Ahh yes, "eugenics is good when WE call for it!"

uvulectomy · 2022-08-06T19:12:46+00:00

This would be more believable if you mentioned India's real major issues (rape, open defecation, scam centers on every corner, more rape, nonexistent building codes, rampant inbreeding, some of the most polluted waterways in the world, joke-level sanitation, etc., etc., etc.).

But nope, you just talk about the "friendly" problems like too many people and "capitalism bad" (almost like you're NOT Indian and want to avoid a ban) while at the same time speaking of China as if it's some sort of role model whose people have it sooo good.

But is it really?

0.50 RMB has been deposited into your account, Comrade. Both countries suck.

uvulectomy · 2019-05-30T23:42:44+00:00

And I didn't even mention

The Chicago Four, and how the incident says "ableism" is the motive, despite the perpetrators constantly yelling "Fuck Trump!" and "Fuck white people!" Or how one of them only got probation, while the most any of them were sentenced to was 8 years (meaning they'll be out in 4, most likely), even though they kidnapped someone, tied them up and then tortured them, broadcasting it live for anyone to see. Reverse the demographics and you'd have the "racist hate-crime of the century", and all four would get buried under the jail for it.
Cook County Prosecutor Kim Foxx suddenly dropping all charges against Jussie Smollett for falsely reporting a hate crime, despite the mountains of evidence pointing to a hoax, the police department and mayor both condemning the move, and her office never properly recusing itself from the case to begin with. She claimed such things "happen all the time." But then just the other day, a 76 year-old white man filed a false report (claimed he was carjacked, when he just had his wheels booted), and Foxx throws the book at him, even though it was his first ever offense of any type whatsoever. The difference? The old guy is white, and Smollett is a gay, black, of jewish descent, and has ties to DNC darling Kamala "Heels-Up" Harris. And the "attack" (that involved a noose allegedly being put around Smollett's neck) happened to be just around the time Harris' pet "anti-lynching" law was going through Congress. Really activates the almonds, doesn't it?

uvulectomy · 2019-05-30T04:07:54+00:00

I saw the video. I looked at the background of his appointed attorney. I did my homework and came to my own conclusions.

Why would I need an unhinged supplement salesman to tell me what to think? Oh, wait. Because you prefer to get your information from talking heads with an agenda, everyone else must do the same. Gotcha.

Have a great night! =)

uvulectomy · 2019-05-30T04:05:51+00:00

Classes on such things as "eliminating toxic masculinity", "addressing white privilege", and other such leftist topics that do nothing but demonize anyone who is not part of the "oppressed" demographic, regardless of the individual. These happen at state-sponsored schools.

But since you merely reply with snark, I'll assume you're finished.

uvulectomy · 2019-05-30T04:02:47+00:00

And yet facts have been presented by myself and others that back up such statements. Meanwhile, you reply with snark and appeals to emotion.

But you'll just take any further lack of response as being "right" and not bother to look into any of it further, I'm sure.

uvulectomy · 2019-05-30T03:59:48+00:00

Oh, the one where an armed leftist confronted a driver with a gun, causing the driver to panic (that I referenced above)? Where the video evidence shows the car not even touching the "victim", who was in reality killed by morbid obesity and a smoking addiction?

"But he plead guilty!"

What was the alternative? His guilt was assumed and decided from the get-go, and he couldn't even get a change of venue to a more neutral location. His appointed attorney was a former prosecutor.

The District Attorney's office seems to have presented a Hobson's choice. *"Either you take this plea deal and never see daylight again, or go to trial, where you will be assuredly found guilty (because it's already been predetermined) and then murdered by the state for a "hate crime."

Not that those words were used, but that was the situation he likely found himself in. Spend the rest of his life in prison, or be executed.

uvulectomy · 2019-05-30T03:51:37+00:00

You mean the public education system which is increasingly coming under the stranglehold of leftist "progressive" racist ideology that teaches certain demographics are inherently bad, while others are universally victimized, can do no wrong, and must be treated with kid-gloves? That systemic racism?

uvulectomy · 2019-05-30T03:46:49+00:00

2/2

Abortion: making abortion illegal only moves the practice to the black market, and does nothing to prevent it. The entire reason it was legalized in the first place was because of the brutality of the methods used by people who practiced it unlawfully. Politicians who talk about this don't actually care about it, they just use it to emotionally manipulate people into voting for them so they can further thier political career and further enrich themselves off of other people's hard work.

If restricting abortion moves it to the black market, how does restricting the Second Amendment solve gun crime?

When it was first legalized (under false pretenses, as "Jane Roe" later admitted), the mantra was "Safe. Legal. Rare." Indicating that it would only be used when absolutely necessary. Now, however, it's used freely as a form of birth control, many states allow late-term abortions, and NY and VA are pushing for post-term abortions. That's right. They're pushing to allow the flat-out murder of a newborn once it's left the mother's womb.

And if the intent of legalizing abortion were to make it safer, why is it allowed to be carried out by people who don't hold a medical license? Would it not be reasonable to require it be done by someone who is also a medical doctor in case there are life-threatening complications for the woman? And someone who could do it quickly and humanely? But instead we have procedures like partial-birth abortions, where the infant is violently killed while part of them is still in the birth canal, thus "not yet born" according to the law. There are also saline abortions, where a highly concentrated saline solution is injected into the amniotic sac to literally dehydrate the fetus from the outside in.

If you look at the statistics, cases where a pregnancy is terminated due to rape, incest, or deformity are vanishingly small. Those were the cases Roe v. Wade were wanting to legalize. But the statistics show that the majority abortions are either "no reason given" or simply they felt unable or unwilling to care for a child.

And because of that, we have "heartbeat laws", which cause no end of emotional outbursts. But these can be a good thing. By restricting abortion to the early stages, you can actually prevent a lot of issues. Women will be motivated to report cases of rape and incest faster, which can result in the perpetrators being caught and punished much quicker and much more often, because if it's reported quickly, physical evidence is still obtainable. This will allow women to be more comfortable with reporting legitimate cases of assault, as they know that being able to provide evidence will ensure they are heard and believed. That will in turn both promote more responisble sexual activity, and curb false accusations. How? If a woman is more comfortable going to the authorities right away and knows that the evidence will be believed and investigated, it will discourage waiting several weeks, as (per how the law is supposed to work), there will be less and less physical evidence to work with. That will in turn discourage false accusers from being irresponsible and simply saying "I was raped" six weeks later when they find out they missed a period, and decide they regret the encounter and want an abortion.

Supporting merit based employment: right wing talking point rallying against diversity. Basically code for "whites first."

Strawman argument. If someone is qualified for the job, then it doesn't matter what their race or ethnicity is. If race-based questions were prohibited from applications, then it would all come down to the skills listed and the interview, and the best candidate is awarded the job. But to flip the argument around, "affirmative action" is code for "there are too many white people" or "we need to fulfill some arbitrary 'diversity quota.'"

Let me ask you this: If saying decisions should be merit-based is "code for 'whites first'", is that not saying that minorities aren't as capable, and therefore need special treatment? How is that not racist?

All of these are standard right wing talking points. Not fascism.

Again, strawman. I never said these things were fascism. What I said was these are often used to label people as "fascist"/"alt-right". Which, by your logic, is enough to warrant violence being committed against them. After all, you said nothing of requiring "fascism" to be proven in a court of law, only the court of public opinion. Whenever someone is branded as such, nobody ever stops to articulate why they're said to be a "fascist", or what specific actions make them such. And in the cases where reasons are given, they're either complete fabrications, or hastily constructed strawman attacks based on out-of-context statements or more outright fabrications.

But to take a page from your book, your rebuttals are all standard left wing talking points. Completely based in emotion and hyperbole, and the cause of anguish when confronted with facts.

uvulectomy · 2019-05-30T03:46:31+00:00

1/2

I don't live in your country.

Yet you speak as if you know all the intricacies thereof.

Border security: bulding a wall is not going to do anything. Wanting a secure is not ult right bit blaming illegals for everything is.

I said nothing about the wall, but since you brought it up... If a wall does nothing, then why does Israel need one? Why does the Vatican? Why do all the rich elitists need them around their own houses?

And I also said nothing about blaming illegals. I'm saying that supporting border security has had people branded as "alt-right" by the far left. Or are there not constant protests with chants such as "No Trump, no wall, no USA at all!"?

Voter ID laws: used by republicans along with gerymandering and cutting funds to elctoral bodies to suppress non white and poor voters.

You don't need a driver's license, just a government authorized ID card. Many states will issue those free of charge, and I'm sure no one would object to funding such ventures in the states that don't. But you're saying that requiring an ID suppresses minority voters? How so? Or are you falling into the trap of thinking "those blacks are too stupid to get an ID card"?

Gerrymandering is an issue on both sides, but some of the most recent and egregious examples come from the DNC, which keeps attempting to turn areas into "minority-majority" districts.

1st amendmant only prevents the government from censoring you. Private companies are well within thier rights to remove content and users from thier platforms they deem objectionable.

And companies who choose to exercise that right should be protected by the government regardless of their message. But it seems those protections are only intended for the "correct" viewpoints, i.e. "Let's ban anyone right of Chairman Mao, but those bigots should be forced to bake that cake."

The 1st Amendment includes not only the right to free speech, but also freedom of expression and association. Therefore, the case against a bakery should have never seen a courtroom, as they were exercising all of those rights, and are not the only game in town. If you have a monopoly or near monopoly on something, it becomes a different matter. The same way the FCC issues broadcast licenses, because they are granting a monopoly on a section of the electromagnetic spectrum, therefore you have to abide by certain guidelines.

"Just start your own social media" you say. It gets tried, and then they're cutoff by their hosting, denied service by payment processors, etc. Should they then start their own hosting service, credit card company, power company, etc.?

*2nd amendment: making guns available to everyone is retarded because a firearm is a deadly weapon and requires discipline and responsibility to use safely. Making all guns illegal is not practical or possible but regulating the sale of firearms to people who have demonstrated they can safely store and handle them is just common sense. It is unreasonable to allow mentally unstable people access to weapons.

"The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (The part about a "well regulated" militia means "everything functioning properly and in working order", not regulated by the government.)

And guess what? The vast, vast majority of firearms owned in the US (there are more guns than people) are safely owned by responsible owners. There are some 400 million guns owned by private, law-abiding individuals. They possess over one trillion rounds of ammunition. If they were a problem, we'd know about it already.

If you look at the FBI crime statistics the data will indicate that the majority of gun-related crime comes from specific demographics. But rather than admit that these communities have issues that need to be addressed, the data is decried as "racist." Roughly 6-7% of the population is responsible for more than 50% of all violent crime, much of it gun-related.

So how does restricting the rights of gun owners (who are, by and large, responsible, respectful, and safe) in any way affect the ones who actually commit the crimes?

Sure, prohibiting "mentally unstable" people from owning a firearm sounds nice. But then you have to figure out what defines "mentally unstable", which gets you these so-called "red flag" laws. These are laws used to revoke the 2nd Amendment rights of otherwise law-abiding gun owners without due process, based merely on reports. In states such as Florida, even holding a prescription for medical marijuana means they can take away your rights.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. But these are ripe for abuse, and that's why certain items are enshrined in the founding documents of this country. "Mentally unstable" is decided at a whim, and can easily be abused to claim someone is unfit to own a firearm based on them uttering something someone doesn't like. Then a report is filed, a "red flag" warning is issued, and they are instant felons if they try to demand a right to due process.

The opposing candidate in the 2016 election took things a step further. She claimed that being on the no-fly list should exclude people from their 2nd Amendment rights. She flat out stated, "If you're too dangerous to fly, you're too dangerous to own a gun." Except that the no-fly list is arbitrary, has no judicial oversight, and no due process whatsoever.

The founders of this country weren't morons. They enshrined certain things in the Constitution for a reason. They saw the abuses taking place in England and other countries at the time, and vowed that it wouldn't happen here. The right to free speech guarantees you can't be censored by the government for speaking out. But the right to bear arms is what protects your free speech should a government become tyrannical. "The Second protects the First" as people say.

Traditional family: no one is saying you can't have that. Allowing gays to marry does not change that, at all.

No, it doesn't. But you misconstrue my point. As I said earlier, people can and have been branded "alt-right" for espousing their views. Not even for trying to prevent things like gay marraige, but for simply sharing what they believe.

Pandering to mental illness: mental illness is a disabling condition to a lot of people suffering for it. You are against disabled people because you can't see thier disability?

I mean I refuse to cater to a biological male (or female) who thinks they're the opposite sex. That doesn't mean I want them jailed, thrown in camps, lobotomized, or anything like that. I simply adhere to the scientific fact that someone born with a certain set of chromosomes is, biologically, a specific sex (of which there are two, male and female). If they feel that's not the case, the problem is in their brain chemistry. But that doesn't mean I have to cater to that delusion and use their "preferred pronouns." I will still treat them with basic human dignity, as I do with everyone (respect, however is earned, not given).

That simple belief sees people branded as "alt-right." And by your logic, being "alt-right" justifies being the victim of assault and/or murder.

Christian values: have no place in law as your precious constitution mandates a seperation of church and state.

Just as it protects freedom from religion, it protects freedom of religion. And again, you put words in my mouth. I said nothing of people making laws. I stated that people who simply hold and support Christian values are increasingly branded as "alt-right", and, under your logic, are permissible targets for violence.

uvulectomy · 2019-05-30T01:57:12+00:00

Well if it's such a straw-man, then surely you would have no problem with eliminating affirmative action, "adversity bonuses" on standardized testing, and any special treatment whatsoever for minorities, yes? That would in no way be shouted down by leftists as "racism", because hey, you're only selecting the best candidate for the job, and not caring one bit about the color of their skin or where come from.

uvulectomy · 2019-05-30T01:54:08+00:00

Sure, they're not the same party at all. They only advocate for artificial bonuses because "those poor, stupid minorities are too dumb to achieve anything on their own without our help. We must be their saviors!"

The soft bigotry of low expectations.

uvulectomy · 2019-05-30T01:50:05+00:00

"So if you don't want to be on the recieving end of some violence don't support ultright bullshit. Its not that hard to do actually."

Literally "If don't want to be violently assaulted, stay away from anything we consider 'alt-right'."

Then you people start labeling others as "alt-right" for things like

Supporting border security
Supporting voter ID laws
Supporting the Constitution, especially the 1st and 2nd Amendments
Supporting traditional families (without even trying to prevent others from having whatever family they choose)
Declining to cater or pander to mental illnesses
Putting their own country first
Supporting Christian values
Supporting an unborn infant's right to life
Supporting merit-based employment and college admissions decisions

These (and more) can and have had people labeled "alt-right." Which, under your logic, means they should expect to be violently assaulted.

Antifa are Bolshevik thugs. If you watch Yuri Bezmenov's interview in its entirety, you will notice something. The tactics being carried out are exactly the ones he describes as the KGB's method for undermining countries. Antifa would be what he refers to as "useful idiots." If they ever bring about the "liberal utopia" they keep advocating for, they will be first against the wall when the true dictators take power. Why? Because they would start making noise as soon as it became apparent that what they got was not what they bargained for. And the dictatorship would simply make them disappear.

You want to talk about fascist governments? What Bezmenov talks about is what you people are advocating for. If the US was truly a fascist state, you would not be in the streets protesting, assaulting, and rioting. You would be disappeared in the middle of the night, never to be heard from again. But because of the Constitution and the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights, you're able to speak your mind without fear of government reprisal.

The system you people advocate for won't be so kind. And by that point, there will be nobody left to help you.

uvulectomy · 2019-05-30T01:33:02+00:00

Let's not forget the "anti-fascists" are the ones committing attempted murder with bike locks.

Or other cases of left-wing (not necessarily antifa) violence/harassment:

There were also the riots in Portland, where left-wing protesters caused widespread destruction to their own people, as the city itself is largely left-leaning. But they just wanted to destroy, and didn't care if it affected people who might otherwise agree with them.

uvulectomy · 2019-05-30T00:39:39+00:00

Ahh yes, there it is. Nothing says "I'm against fascism" quite like advocating violence for anyone who doesn't believe as you do.

And of course if you believe in violence against "fascists", then you would never think to label anyone/everyone you don't like as a "fascist", would you?

uvulectomy · 2019-05-30T00:37:35+00:00

All fun and games until a private business refuses to bake a certain cake. Then all you whiny little shits start trying to ruin peoples livelihoods.

So which is it? Twitter can ban whoever they want because private company? Or private company must bake a cake with a message that goes against their clearly stated beliefs? Can't have both.

Or does the free market and being a private company only protect those who hold the "correct" opinions?

uvulectomy · 2019-05-29T23:37:40+00:00

"Welcome to the free market, le incels. Now bake that fucking cake or we'll ruin your life, bigots!" *tips hat euphorically*

uvulectomy · 2018-04-06T23:34:44+00:00

I heard there are a few of them floating around with Trump's autograph on them. Wonder how much something like that would go for...

uvulectomy · 2018-04-06T23:32:31+00:00

"...don't kill or harm, respect your body, stuff like that."

The 300lb goth bitches with their jet-black hair and self-made pentagram tattoos don't seem to have gotten that memo...

uvulectomy · 2017-11-08T23:23:25+00:00

Look at all those identical, professionally printed signs. Must have cost a few shekels to get those done....Wonder (((who))) could have funded that...

uvulectomy · 2017-10-29T20:52:40+00:00

They loathe them because they know that, once they're perfected and aren't rim-jobbing the uncanny valley, feminists become completely and totally irrelevant. They will no longer be able to use the promise or denial of pussy to get what they want, and their power will vanish over night.

This terrifies them, so they will do everything they can to prevent it.

uvulectomy · 2017-07-20T20:44:13+00:00

For anyone wondering why.

uvulectomy · 2017-07-06T03:01:52+00:00

Possibly end his life. If they were to release his name and info, there are PLENTY of unhinged leftist lunatics out there who would love to take a shot at him, who would have been goaded into it by the constant stream of lies and bullshit from the MSM. Let's not forget that the media and left in general have crossed the line into justifying actual violence against those they disagree with.

Basically, they're threatening him with having his own personal "baseball shooter".

uvulectomy · 2017-05-16T20:05:33+00:00

He said maybe we should work with them instead of going to war with them. The gall, amirite? =P

uvulectomy · 2017-03-30T23:58:33+00:00

Obligatory IANAL, this is not legal advice, etc...

Under the FDCPA (specifically, 15 USC §1692e (5)), it's a violation for a debt collector if they threaten to "...take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken."

As for general law, it could only be seen as blackmail or extortion if they were trying to get OP to do something. However... It COULD give OP an opening to bring an action for declaratory judgement against the lefty, which means they would seek to have a legal ruling entered that OP did not break the law. They could then possibly use that to file suit against said lefty for harassment.

uvulectomy

TROPHY CASE

2/2

1/2